Full size screenshots from members area - Good or Bad?

[gaydemon]

I've noticed that some review sites offer fullsize screenshots from inside member areas on paysites. I think it used to be more common before but not as many do it now.

Is it a good thing, would it be of benefit both the review owner and site owner to offer larger screenshots or is it better to leave some to the imagenation?

For example:

http://www.rabbitsreviews.com/blakemason-3301.html

(blakemason just a random review i picked, honestly! :) )

[basschick]

seems to me it depends on the site. for sites with organized member areas that look good, it could mean that potential members have a good idea of what to expect and would be more likely to buy. on the other hand, there are a lot of amateur sites out there, or sites made by guys who really haven't seen a lot of paysite member areas and their member areas are sometimes really horrible. showing those disorganized ugly member areas could make their sales disappear even if the content is good.

[Squirt]

For sites with transparent tours it would be great!

Unfortunately most sites don't have transparent tours and their members area doesn't match the style of the tour, sales will suffer for them.

If you want to make more money then showing the members area of most sites will not help.

[Adam Mason]

LOL!!! 135 films? There are 455 now!!! Odd because they have a recent film set as the grabs but they haven't updated just how big the site is now!

I agree with Basschick - there are pro's and con's and as a sponsor I don't mind affiliates showing surfers what it's like inside.

[gaydemon]

For sites with transparent tours it would be great!

Unfortunately most sites don't have transparent tours and their members area doesn't match the style of the tour, sales will suffer for them.

If you want to make more money then showing the members area of most sites will not help.

Both very good points. There are lots of sites that have VERY different tours to their content areas. I can really see that making it harder to sell them.


LOL!!! 135 films? There are 455 now!!! Odd because they have a recent film set as the grabs but they haven't updated just how big the site is now!

I agree with Basschick - there are pro's and con's and as a sponsor I don't mind affiliates showing surfers what it's like inside.

I didn't even think of that. The bigger screenshots are less forgiving and needs to be updated more often or be very inaccurate.



And I understand what you mean

[q1sites]

The bigger screenshots are less forgiving and needs to be updated more often or be very inaccurate.


Isn't is true of reviews generally? That they get out of date if they are not updated.

Also there's a trade off between an unbiased review (show the members area warts and all) or sales (hide things that won't help sales). Bjorn, many of your reviews are of the more critical type, (and I mean like a theatre or film critic) and many are very out of date, so I'm surprised you take this tack. Why not just have a screenshot that is date stamped or updated every 6 months. I see TBP requests continuous site access.

[Daniel]

It's fairly expensive to maintain high quality reviews though, so updating reviews, particularly as in Bjorn's case where there are several hundred, would really not be financially a great a move. I think one has to take a view on it, when it's clear a site review is outdated or something dramatic has changed, I would add it to the *to update* list, but trying to keep a large review database updated is a full time job in its own right.

I don't think critical reviews wil necessarily harm sales, if anything it's likely to increase them - people know what they are getting and aren't surprised or angered if they find out it has DRM, doesn't update as frequently etc - I am sure many people sign up because they like one particular model, and aren't overly worried about updates etc.

Date stamping 'revealing' screenshots is however a good idea for sure, although most reviews are date stamped any way so I am sure the surfer can correlate the two.

It's also worth remembering when theres a database of several hundred reviews, if they aren't honest then they all become a bit 'samey' - so when one does have several hundred reviews, one can afford to be more picky in terms of what they comment on.

I think the usual holds true.. the more honest a review is and the more revealing a screenshot is, the more the better sites will stand out - which can only be a good thing for the industry to improve standards through increased transparacy.

[Adam Mason]

Well, I think it must be a bit of a headache running a review site and keeping it updated, but then that's why surfers use them. If the review is woefully out of date (there are some for BlakeMason which still have images from the old brown and cream tour that was replaced 2 years ago!) then they're most likely not relevant anymore.

My point re the review link Bjorn posted was that they are using recent updates for the screen grabs but look at the opening blurb where is says 135 films. Why update the images and not the number of films when it's a huge difference?

Coming back to the question and reading some of the points of view, I find it odd that people think it wise to hide a horrible members area. If the site can't be bothered to make the member's experience pleasurable and easy then why not make it clear and show it? Otherwise it's a bit of punch on the nose to those sites who do work extra hard on delivering a quality member experience.

[Squirt]

Coming back to the question and reading some of the points of view, I find it odd that people think it wise to hide a horrible members area.

If you're referencing me, I didn't mean to come across that way :clown:

The reason I have transparent tours is because I want the surfer to know exactly what they are getting inside.

For a review site, showing the members area of sites without transparent tours could mean a loss of income, so for review sites it's a balancing act.

I think a plausible solution for review sites would be giving a separate star rating for the "members area" and perhaps extra points for a transparent tour ;)

[HunkMoneyLuke]

I voted good because I know our members areas rock!

[gaydemon]

Isn't is true of reviews generally? That they get out of date if they are not updated.

Also there's a trade off between an unbiased review (show the members area warts and all) or sales (hide things that won't help sales). Bjorn, many of your reviews are of the more critical type, (and I mean like a theatre or film critic) and many are very out of date, so I'm surprised you take this tack. Why not just have a screenshot that is date stamped or updated every 6 months. I see TBP requests continuous site access.

No, don't think its quite the same thing. With a picture you can see straight away if its the same site or not. A review will only give a written impression of some important points about a site. You wouldn't neccessarily realize if its out of date or not.

By the way, I bet you can't find any other review site that's more up to date than GayDemon. Each week we re-review 5-7 sites AND at least a few brand new sites.

Just do the math, I've got 714 reviews on GayDemon just to update each site once a year I would have to do 2+ per day. Each review costs me considerable more to create than 1 single sale. Many reviews do not make many sales.. But most of all, for every 100 emails I send out to request a new login I get less 10 answers back. It's totally impossible let alone finacialy viable to keep a review site "up-to-date". I do the best I can and from what I know, no other review site even come close to that.

Infact, most review site will do a single review and never return.

In my view its also the site owners responsibitly to setup a login and request an update. It is in their own interest after all.

Anyway.. sorry just had to make it very clear we're working hard to keep it all as up to date as you can. ;)